Beilue: Not again

A group of friends are overcome with emotion as they gather outside Gateway High School, Friday July 20, 2012, in Aurora, Colo. They recieved news that their friend was killed during a shooting early Friday inside the Aurora movie theater. A gunman wearing a gas mask set off an unknown gas and fired into the crowded movie theater killing 12 people and injuring at least 50 others, authorities said.

Add a movie theater to the many other places where parents, young adults, teens and children — all innocents — are vulnerable to senseless acts.

Add a movie theater to other supposedly safe places like summer camps, college and high school classrooms, a McDonald’s restaurant, a Luby’s cafetreria, churches, an Amish elementary school, a post office and an immigrant center, where senseless slaughter invades.

In 1966, Charles Whitman climbed to the 28-story observation deck of the University of Texas tower. He killed 16 that day, including randomly shooting 10 on and around the campus with a high-powered rifle before two police officers shot him.

Mass killings like that at the time were unprecedented. The horror was hard to comprehend. A madman randomly killing so many in just more than 96 minutes until then was pure fiction.

The murders got world-wide attention. Whitman’s deranged acts were on the cover of Time, Newsweek and Life magazines in the decades before social media.

For some who are old enough, much like the assassination of President John F. Kennedy three years before, they remember where they were when hearing of someone killing all he could while atop the UT Tower.

This kind of unthinkable thing just didn’t happen.

This large-scale mass murder surely wouldn’t happen again.

Were that true. In the 46 years since, when just one was one too many, it’s happened more than we could imagine, more than what right-thinking people think is possible in this society.

Many woke to the news Friday morning of a 24-year-old gunman on a rampage at a midnight premiere of the last of the Batman trilogy, “The Dark Knight Rises,” in an Aurora, Colo., theater. At least 12 are dead and 59 are wounded.

The reactions now are slightly different. We are shocked, horrified, saddened for victims and their families we do not know. But we now wear extra layers of numbness, gradually added by other mass murders in this country.

It’s not so much disbelief as a collective shaking of our heads, a long sigh and the muttering of, “Not again.”

Unfortunately, we know it’s happened too many times and on this large a scale.

Almost a year to the day, July 22, 2011, a man shot and killed 69 in a Norway summer camp, most as they tried to swim to safety. Norway is probably one of the most peaceful countries in the world.

But what of the United States? In the last 26 years, at least seven mass shootings that were not terrorism-related have killed right at or more than Whitman’s rampage.

This doesn’t include the Fort Hood shootings in 2009, the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995, and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for some idiotic “political cause.”

Those are just more the case of a deranged individual in his chosen killing field.

Those are unlike the 21 killed at a McDonald’s in San Diego in 1984; 14 at an Edmond, Okla., post office in 1986; 23 at a Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen in 1991; 12 at Columbine High School in suburban Denver in 1999; the 11 at an immigrant center in Binghampton, N.Y., in 2009; the six killed in a gathering for Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011.

Then there’s the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, the 31 dead at Virginia Tech in 2007, and maybe the hardest of all to try to fathom, the five young girls shot at an Amish school in Pennsylvania in 2006.

Do I need to add the seven killed at a Fort Worth church in 1999, or the five shot at a Colorado church and youth mission in 2007 among many other tragedies? This is a long and still incomplete list.

In these times, there is no certain sanctuary in a sanctuary, no complete safety eating a quarter-pounder or the LuAnn special, no escape from risk in a science class or watching a blockbuster movie.

This is not about guns. Yes, guns make it far easier to engage in mass murder, but so does fertilizer, dynamite and airliners.

This is about evil.

Evil has always been, and always will be. It explodes at any time in any place.

And unfortunately, it’s more frequent, causing us to lament, “Not again.”

Jon Mark Beilue is a columnist at the Globe-News. He can be reached at jon.beilue@amarillo.com or 806-345-3318. His blog appears on amarillo.com. Follow him on Twitter: @jonmarkbeilue.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

This article is weird. The author spends a lot of time recounting all of the tragedies that have happened (with guns as the primary ingredient involved) and then goes on to say, "This is not about guns". Uhhh...excuse me? Guns are most certainly what this is about. Put them in the hands of terrorists, lunatics or bad men in general and you have a potential mass murder or other senseless tragedy just waiting to happen. So either you get to the basic problem or you ignore it and let it happen again. Those are the choices. That said, it's time for some folks to quit believing in "bumper sticker logic" and get serious.

Put the exact same guns into a persons hands that wants to do good and the weapons you desire to get serious about begin to save lives. A gun is no different than a socket wrench or a scredriver. It is simply a tool. They are completely usless on their own. As much as I hate to fall back on the old addage guns dont kill people, people kill people; its true. They have no brain, no thought process- no different than any other tool.

The list of places in the story where people are not safe is dominated by places that concealed handgun owners are often prohibited from carrying- movie theaters, sporting events, schools, churches, and post offices. Maybe the problem is that we are disarming the people that are willing to stop things like this without waiting for the police to arrive, assess, and act. The first hand accounts indicate that the shooter had time to reload. This would be a much different story if the assailant had entered, shot a few people and was stopped by an armed citizen.

"The list of places in the story where people are not safe is dominated by places that concealed handgun owners are often prohibited from carrying- movie theaters, sporting events, schools, churches, and post offices." [Skilawyer]

Yep, that's what we need--another idiot with a "John Wayne complex" armed with a gun shooting at someone with a mass of people in the crossfire. Great. Just great...

It's ok Uriah43 , law abiding citizens don't have a the scary "John Wayne" or "wild west shootout" complex that the media has force fed down peoples throats. I mean, the shooter entered a gun free zone, doesn't he know that's not allowed and he can't do that. It doesn't matter what the law is, a criminal doesn't care, that's why he is a criminal. A gun free zone only disarms the law abiding citizens making them helpless sheep to be slaughter in a situation just like this.

The pure fact, backed up by years of FBI statistics, is the vast majority of these tragedies are in gun free zones and the cities with the highest crime rates in the nation have the most stringent gun laws. For some reason there is a certain group of people that cannot and won't believe that correlation.

You can't use facts to argue with liberals or anti gun people, most either ignore the current reality and substitute their own, or they ban soft drinks or something else ridiculous... Like banning all handguns in the UK for the citizens protection, even though violent crime rate is much higher than in the US after the ban took place.

This blog to me is about evil, NOT the instrument of evil. It’s also a comment about the increased violence in our society, much more than could have been imagined nearly a half-century ago. As he says, “guns make it far easier to engage in mass murder, but so does fertilizer and airliners.” No matter what kind of gun laws we have, lunatics who want them to kill will get them.

"You can't use facts to argue with liberals or anti gun people, most either ignore the current reality and substitute their own, or they ban soft drinks or something else ridiculous... Like banning all handguns in the UK for the citizens protection, even though violent crime rate is much higher than in the US after the ban took place." [JaLester]

You're right, there's no use arguing with some people because they just make up stuff and throw it out as fact. For example, you state that increased bans of handguns have caused the crime rates to soar in Great Britain. The fact is though the article you cited listed allowing bars to remain open longer as one of the factors. Not gun control. But if it makes you feel good to point your fingers at "liberals" and "anti gun people" for making things up then go right ahead. But don't expect any credibility. Except from "gun nuts" that is...

"Not Again" is a good title for this well written article on some of the sickest minded individuals that have walked among us. As a society it seems that we have become to thick skin, calloused, immune, lost the "shock value" or however you want to express it when we hear or read about these mass murderers.

It seems like there is always a sick minded individual(s) out there that wants their 15 minutes of fame, by trying to "one up", "outdo", etc. the last mass murderer headlines.

When a pistol, rifle, shotgun is used in one of these mass murders, all the anti-gun enthusiasts start their bellowing, squawking, screaming for gun control. We have enough laws on the books as it is and they need to be enforced, not new laws passed. Nor do we need to surrender our guns for "our own protection".

When it is time for trial, the "experts" come out of he woodwork and tell us that "Charlie" was mistreated as a child, wet the bed, mommy issues, misunderstood, temporarily insane, etc and he shouldn't be found guilty of their well precision carried out mass murder.

You can leave any pistol, rifle, and/or shotgun, laying unattended no matter if it is for 2 minutes, or 10 years and it will not hurt, maim, injure, or kill anyone. So in reality, guns do not kill, they are safe.

People kill people and they accomplish it with all kinds of instruments, weapons, tools, etc. Some mass murderers can be and possibly are ordinary people, neighbors, family members, etc. and a lot of the time you hear people say that they can look back and see the missed and/or overlooked signs of that individual was acting strange.

The end result is that mass murders walk among us and they are unknown to us until we pick up a paper and read about them, receive a news flash on our cell phones, turn on the TV, read about it on Facebook, etc. and we think "Not Again".

Violence is violence..makes no difference how he chose to do it .. he could have chosen any number of ways to achieve the same results.. taking away my right to own firearms takes away a level of protection against people like this guy.. In 2009 my home was broken into while myself and family were home in bed. I used the right to own my firearm to protect my family.. Once the guy knew I was armed he didn't have much interest in anything except not getting shot which he repeatedly asked me not to do.. The Amarillo police told me he had been out of prison for two whole months. Who knows what the outcome might have been had I not had my firearm.. Gun control? I think not! Maybe people control would be a better solution.

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
-Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

The article link I posted was purely used for data, and only a small portion of the uptick in the article was related to bars being open longer in the early hours of the morning, like literally one sentence in the entire article. It's okay that you missed the point of my original comment and the linked article, and I'm sure giving sufficient time I can find you all the data you need.

"We're now on our fourth Home Secretary this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction."

This is the main point of the article and a major misstep that liberals take in dealing with issues. They ignore data and logic to emotionally come up with a solution that has no foundation of ever being successful. Like spending a crap load of tax payer money and going further in debt to help the US get out of debt....

"I'll say this, if there had been a CCW carrier in the audience, it is very possible that the sensless carnage wrought by this madman would have been MUCH less." [Bearway64]

A person with a gun firing in a dark, smoke-filled theater (with people running and screaming all around) at a man with several weapons and a bullet-proof vest would have just added to the carnage. Any person with any common sense could figure something like this out. Further, anybody who is so scared that they think they need to carry a gun everywhere they go probably shouldn't have a gun in the first place. I'm just sayin'...

We can't even take away alcohol and drugs, we are never going to be able to take away guns even if we tried. Which I am not for doing.

I don't know how you can say this is evil. We do not know anything yet. It could be just a completely deranged individual who thought he was stopping evil himself.

Life is never going to be free of senseless deaths. It never has been. You can tote a gun around with you if you want but that does not guarantee that the perp won't be a faster, better shot or won't have a bomb in his pocket. You can lock away every insane person in the country but that doesn't mean someone won't have a brain tumor develop quickly and kill people before they are noticed. Or take a medication for that matter.

These kinds of things rarely happen, when they happen they are horrible and heartbreaking but you are never going to eliminate every threat.

Just like a guy in full combat gear would have done. Armour does not cover everything, and remember, we are talking about a coward here, he didn't man up, he hid behind that body armour. Ask anyone who has worn body armour and had it stop a .45, the bullet doesn't penetrate the armour, but the kinectic energy puts you immediately on your butt. Even a 200 Grain Ball at under 900fps from an old .45 would have probably taken him down.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and chief author (1794): ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

U43 (7/20/12 at 2:39 pm): ""You can't use facts to argue with liberals or anti gun people, most either ignore the current reality and substitute their own, or they ban soft drinks or something else ridiculous... Like banning all handguns in the UK for the citizens protection, even though violent crime rate is much higher than in the US after the ban took place." [JaLester]
You're right, there's no use arguing with some people because they just make up stuff and throw it out as fact. For example, you state that increased bans of handguns have caused the crime rates to soar in Great Britain." RESPONSE: The total ban on the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens (the only ones whom the ban affects) in Great Britain HAS increased the numbers of crimes by criminals using guns in that country exponentially, Uriah. In GB, if one resists a home intruder, and the intruder is injured, the resident of the home, or its owner (if not one and the same) is generally charged with a serious crime such as attempted murder. In other words, the criminals rule the roost.

Cesare Beccaria, in his book, "Essay on Crimes and Punishments" (published in 1809) , as translated by Thomas Jefferson in his "Legal Commonplace Book", stated: For example, that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather the sentiments of mankind rather than excite them, who dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave", who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the FEAR of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned, and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather ENCOURAGES [emphasis added] than prevents murder,as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."

Places like theaters, schools, colleges/universities, and so on and so forth, where legal possession of firearms by law abiding citizens are banned by state and federal laws, have become FREE-FIRE zones for the criminals, who know that they will have anywhere from a few seconds to hours in which they can kill to their heart's content. "Gun Free Zone" laws ENCOURAGE mass shootings like this to occur--they don't prevent them.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and chief author (1794): ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

U43 (7/20/12 at 3:52 pm): "A person with a gun firing in a dark, smoke-filled theater (with people running and screaming all around) at a man with several weapons and a bullet-proof vest would have just added to the carnage. Any person with any common sense could figure something like this out. Further, anybody who is so scared that they think they need to carry a gun everywhere they go probably shouldn't have a gun in the first place. I'm just sayin'..." RESPONSE: A person who had taken firearms training, had practiced with his/her weapon, would not have added but one person to any "carnage", and that is the person doing the shooting. A .45 caliber ACP slug traveling at 750-900 feet per second delivered to center of mass, or to the head of the gunman firing indiscriminately into a crowd would have stopped the carnage before more than 5-10 shots had been fired by the gunman. With a double-tap to center of mass, and one shot to center of the head, the gunman would have been down in seconds. Not minutes.

It isn't about "being scared to think they need to carry a gun everywhere they go", Uriah, it's what the Boy Scout motto says--"Be Prepared", i.e., be prepared for the worst to happen, so when it does, you know what to do about it.

The FACT remains that the Constitution guarantees the right of any individual who wishes to do so to own and carry "arms" anywhere they wish--as a member of the militia, so that he/she may serve as a check upon any potential tyrannical action of any level of government (the purpose of the 2nd amendment) or to defend themselves and their loved ones if they are in fear for their life in a situation like this theater shooting--guaranteed by the ninth amendment to the Constitution.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and chief author (1794): ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

U43 (7/20/12 at 1:52 pm): " A gun is no different than a socket wrench or a scre[w]driver." [Mule426].As a nation we will never get to the point of lessening senseless gun-violence as long as we think like this. Never." RESPONSE: No u43, as long as we have people like you, who are so scared of their own shadows that they think that a gun somehow is an evil thing, that causes people to commit senseless crimes, we won't lessen the incidence of things like this. Guns are a tool the same as anything else, knives, hammers, golf clubs, baseball bats, swords, screwdrivers, chain saws, axes, hatchets, ice picks, forks, spoons, drill bits, pipe wrenches, and so on, all of which have also been used by people to kill others. Guns are inanimate objects, with no will of their own. They are only as good or as bad as the person wielding them.

As Richard Henry Lee once said: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Knowledge of Firearms safety, and firearms marksmanship should be a requirement for graduation from the nation's high schools, unless a student has a religious or moral objection to the ownership of firearms. (IMO, such a student should be required to wear a sign stating "I'm too much of a coward to defend myself").

Too many of the arguments posted in this discussion are just not realistic. Guns are NOT the same as socket wrenches and screwdrivers. This nut could not have killed and wounded more than 60 people with socket wrenches, not even a whole set. And audience members armed with screwdrivers would have done poorly confronting a crazy man in full armor and in possession of two 40-caliber Glock handguns, a Remington 870 single-barrel pump shotgun and a Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle. Let's drop the pretense: guns are special, because of their much more lethal potential. As individuals and as a nation, we have to recognize that.

Second: Concealed Carry Permit Holders in Colorado are not forbidden to carry in movie theatres by either state or federal law, unless the theater or other business has everyone entering screened by professional screeners and metal detectors at the entrance. The odds are that one or more permitees were in the audience; whether they were carrying is unknown.

Third: You can not protect yourself against all violent hazards with a concealed carry permit, your legal weapon and a bandolier across your chest, and when in peril, you do have to consider the potential harm to others you may create as well as the likelihood of your success in stopping the threat. You are not Superman; get used to it.

Whew that was a close one, it looked like for a minute I was going to have to end the week agreeing with Yhmil but then the third post came up:

Yhmil: Knowledge of Firearms safety, and firearms marksmanship should be a requirement for graduation from the nation's high schools, unless a student has a religious or moral objection to the ownership of firearms. (IMO, such a student should be required to wear a sign stating "I'm too much of a coward to defend myself").

So all is right with the world again, I can go about my weekend not questioning my very sanity.

"As a nation we will never get to the point of lessening senseless gun-violence as long as we think like this. Never."

I have to make this fast. The Dark Knight starts at 1930 and I have been waiting 3 years to see it.

Please take this following statement from a cop. A cop who cares about everyone here, whther they like me or not, whether they appreciate me or not.

First, if we as a nation just lay down and cower before the people who would do us harm, THEN we are sure to falter. Ask anyone who has been involved in a mass shooting, and they'll tell you, "I wish I had done something, I wish someone had done something" I guarantee you that there are many people in Colorado today wishing they could go back last night and have done SOMETHING....Like maybe just grab that lady's hand and guide her to safety, lay on top of that child, wish that I had brought my gun, wish SOMEONE had brought a gun....

And for the Officers who were less than 100 yds away in the SAME building.....I bet they have nightmares for years. Wishing they could have done more.

Why does it have to be that way? Why is it not OK for people to stand up and fight back? Don;t you like to think that one man, properly trained, with a gun, could have made the difference in this awful story? What if you and I had been there together? A Cop and his friend, what if I went down but you knew I had my gun....Can;t YOU Sir, be trusted to try and stand and fight? Why do guns have to be banned for ALL because of the insane actions of a few?

Try and think about this. One man might have made the difference. To just step in and condemn guns dishonors those who died, those who were there, those who lost. Try to find a solution to stop a deranged man. The laws in place didnt work. Do you think more laws would have?

Thank you Bubba Billybob. It appears that even StillNAT22 has somehow become a zombie as apparently she's beginning to accept Yhmil5's idiotic interpretation of the Constitution. Talk about bizarre. Anyway, at least your post gave me some reassurance that there is still some sanity out there.

"First, if we as a nation just lay down and cower before the people who would do us harm..." [1242]

Uh...who said anything about laying down and cowering? What I want to see happen is some kind of action to take the guns out of the hands of lunatics. As a cop I would think you would want to do that too. But then, if you consider that action as laying down and cowering then maybe you need to take some time off and regather your wits. Further, I would think that you would be the FIRST PERSON to realize that having an idiot firing a gun in a dark, crowded, smoke-filled theater at a lunatic (and vice-versa) would be the one thing you would NOT want. But then, I doubt you're a "real" cop. Otherwise you wouldn't be hesitant to take guns away from people who are apt to do innocent people harm. Innocent people--you know--the folks you're supposed to protect and serve? Well, maybe not in your case if you think disarming lunatics is wrong...